Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Glossopharyngeal Neuralgia: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature.

BACKGROUND: Glossopharyngeal neuralgia (GPN) is a rare cause of facial pain that has an incidence of less than one per 100,000 people. The excruciating stabbing pain experienced by patients with GPN can be debilitating, leading to difficulties in activities of daily living, such as eating and speaking. As a result, there has been a recent increase in research on the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating GPN. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of (RFA for treating GPN while examining its impact on patients' quality of life and assesses for any associated side effects. STUDY DESIGN: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) model was employed to identify articles from 2 comprehensive medical databases. The patient outcomes and numbers from each article were aggregated and calculated in order to determine the percent efficacy of RFA for treating pain associated with GPN. METHODS: In this systematic review, the PRISMA review model was utilized to search through the PubMed and EMBASE databases. A comprehensive literature review was conducted. Of the initial 1,580 articles identified, 18 articles were included for analysis. Studies included in this systematic review encompassed idiopathic cases and secondary causes, such as an elongated styloid process, oropharyngeal cancers, and postsurgical/traumatic pain. RESULTS: Of the 288 patients treated with RFA, 231 experienced relief or complete resolution of pain, yielding an efficacy rate of 80.2%. Most of the patients experienced immediate pain relief after RFA; however, some patients reported numbness, dysphagia, and changes in taste. Our study examines the potential use of RFA as a minimally invasive and effective treatment for GPN. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of our study include the absence of comparisons between different types, modes, and settings of RFA procedures. The use of only 2 medical databases is another limitation. Finally, our systematic review does not include any randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSION: RFA is efficacious in treating GPN with over 80% of patients experiencing postprocedure pain relief. However, further research in the form of clinical and controlled trials is needed to contribute to a better understanding of RFA's long-term outcomes for patients with GPN.

Radiation Exposure in Interventional Pain Management Physicians: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature.

BACKGROUND: Millions of interventional pain procedures are performed each year to address chronic pain. The increase in these procedures also raises the concern of health risks associated with ionizing radiation for interventional pain management physicians who perform fluoroscopy-guided operations. Some health concerns include cancers, cataracts, and even pregnancy abnormalities. Little is known regarding the long-term and cumulative effects of small radiation doses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to identify common body parts that are exposed to ionizing radiation during interventional pain procedures and examine methods to help physicians reduce their radiation exposure. STUDY DESIGN: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was used to comprehensively identify articles from 2 medical databases. The radiation dose to interventional pain management physicians obtained from relevant peer-reviewed articles were aggregated and used for analysis. METHODS: PubMed was first used to collect the articles for two broad keyword searches of "radiation exposure pain management" and "radiation exposure interventionalist" with years ranging from 1956 - February 2023. EMBASE was also used to collect the articles for the two keyword searches of "radiation exposure pain management" and "radiation exposure interventionalist" with years ranging from 1969 - February 2023. This systematic approach yielded a total of 2,736 articles; 24 were included in our paper. The risk of bias for these articles was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool. RESULTS: Through our systematic literature search, more than 3,577 patients were treated by 30 interventional pain management physicians. Some areas of exposure to radiation include the physician's neck, chest, groin, hands, and eyes. One common body region that is exposed to radiation is the chest; our review found that wearing lead aprons can lower the radiation dose by more than 95%. Wearing protective equipment and managing the distance between the operator and fluoroscope can both independently lower the radiation dose by more than 90% as well. Our literature review also found that other body parts that are often overlooked in regard to radiation exposure are the eyes and hands. In our study, the radiation dose to the outside (unprotected) chest ranged from 0.008 ± 27 mrem to 1,345 mrem, the outside neck ranged from 572 mrem to 2,032 mrem, the outside groin ranged from 176 mrem to 1,292 mrem, the hands ranged from 0.006 ± 27.4 mrem to 0.114 ± 269 mrem, and the eyes ranged from 40 mrem to 369 mrem. When protective equipment was worn, the radiation exposure to the inside chest ranged from 0 mrem to 108 mrem, the inside neck ranged from 0 mrem to 68 mrem, and the inside groin ranged from 0 mrem to 15 mrem. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include its small sample size; only the radiation exposure of 30 interventional pain management physicians were examined. Furthermore, this review mainly consisted of observational studies rather than randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSION:   Implementing safety precautions, such as wearing protective gear, providing educational programs, and keeping a safe distance, demonstrated a significant decrease in radiation exposure. The experience of interventional pain management physicians also factored into their radiation exposure during procedures. Radiation is a known carcinogen, and more research is needed to better understand its risk to interventional pain management physicians.

State of the field survey: spinal cord stimulator use by academic pain medicine practices.

OBJECTIVE: The concept of neuromodulation via the use of spinal cord stimulators (SCS) was first established over forty years ago. Since then, its popularity has grown as numerous studies have demonstrated its utility to reduce chronic pain, improve patient function, and reduce long-term health care costs. The aim of this study was to update the pain medicine community on the evolution of SCS practice trends in academic centers. DESIGN: Ninety-three pain medicine fellowship programs in the United States were identified from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Website and were contacted to participate in an internet survey. A 37-item questionnaire was inspired by a previous study performed by Fanciullo et al. Questions focused on three main themes regarding SCS clinical application, namely demographics, education, and technical matters. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 50 institutions, all of which reported performing SCS interventions. Annual implants ranged from 0 to 150. Fellowship training was cited as the most valuable modality for learning implantation. Nearly all programs reported manufacturer representative participation during SCS procedures, with a minority of program directors discouraging their involvement in fellow education. SCS trials were performed exclusively on an outpatient basis. The average length for trials was 4-7 days. The most common indication for SCS implantation was failed back surgery syndrome, which also had the highest 2-year success rate. Post procedure, patients generally were followed up every 2-4 weeks for device reprogramming, which was performed by company representatives 92% of the time. CONCLUSION: Standardized SCS training is imperative as the implementation of neuromodulation therapy continues to increase.

A new muscle pain detection device to diagnose muscles as a source of back and/or neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Trigger point (TrPs) identification has become the mainstay of diagnosis for the treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome; however, manual pressure (MP) to identify TrPs by determining low-pressure pain threshold has low interrater reliability and may lack validity since it is done on inactive muscles. To elicit contractions and mimic an active muscle or movement that "causes" pain, a Muscle Pain Detection Device (MPDD) has been developed. A selected muscle is stimulated and painful muscles are precisely detected, allowing distinctions between primary and referred muscle pain as well as distinguishing other functional muscle pain thought to cause MPS. METHODS: An IRB approved randomized controlled study is presented of MP (20 patients) control vs MPDD (20 patients) to identify which muscle(s) was the source of pain in subjects presenting to the NYU Pain Management Center with a minimum 3 months history of back pain. Patients were unaware of their diagnostic method. Subjects were injected in 1-3 sites identified via MP or MPDD by a separate, blinded physician. Prior to, and following treatment at one week and one month, the patients were administered Oswestry and visual analog scale pain questionnaires by a blinded evaluator, and their range of motion was measured by a blinded physical therapist. RESULTS: The MPDD group reported significantly larger improvements in pain, mood and Oswestry scores compared with the control (P < 0.05). Moreover, the MPDD group reported 82.5% pain relief at 1 month, compared with 53.2% in the control (P < 0.001). The range of motion measurements failed to reveal any significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using the MPDD appears to be more valid and potentially more reliable than palpation to identify muscles causing regional pain that could benefit from injections.